AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
22.05.2025 : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the adjudicating authority dated 26.03.2025, by which the application I.A. 738/2025 filed by the appellant seeking direction to accept the claim as financial creditor has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the financial creditor has given loan to the corporate debtor and a legal notice was also issued for repayment and the adjudicating authority committed error in rejecting. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to balance confirmation as well as the statement of account in support of his case.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there was no document produced by the appellant to prove that it was a financial debt. In the balance sheet, the amount was reflected as advance for property and it was the document relied in the ‘Form-CA’ filed by the appellant. Respondent has also referred to the email of the RP rejecting the claim dated 12.09.2024.
We have considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and perused the records.
The ‘Form-CA’ of the appellant is at Page 57 where under the column 5 on basis of which the debt can be sustained only balance sheet of Financial Year 2017 & 2018 was attached and which was the only document filed along with the Form. As submitted by counsel for the respondent, in the balance sheet amount is mentioned as advance for property. By email dated 12.09.2024, the RP has rejected to claim, which is as follows:
“Umesh Gupta ibc.mountainmeadows@gmail.com To: Adhunik Enterprises adhunikenterprises20@gmail.com Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 12:29 PM Dear Sir, Please take note that claim of Rs. 2,77,68,988 filed in Form CA as Financial Creditor in Class is hereby rejected for the following reasons:-
1.You had submitted your audited balance sheet for the F Y 2017-2018 wherein it has shown that you have receivable of Rs. 45,00,000 from the corporate debtor on account of advances against purchases which itself indicate that your debt does not constitute a financial debt.
2.Further, undersigned has pursued the audited financial statements of the corporate debtor and your claim could not be verified from the same.
3.You failed to produce any evidence that any amount of interest or principal was ever paid by the corporate debtor to you.
4.You have also failed to produce any evidence in respect to any email exchange or service of any legal notice ( you have attached two legal notices but no evidence is there with respect to delivery of those notices) sent by you for recovery of your dues from the corporate debtor. Please take note accordingly. Regards,”
The submission of the appellant is on the basis of balance confirmation which is filed by the appellant as Annexure A-6 which is as follows:
“MOUNTAIN MEADOW HOLIDAYS (P) LTD 11/77, WEST PUNJABI BAGH, NEAR PUNJABI BAGH CLUB, DELHI – 110026, PAN NO : AACCM9855G
ADVANCE RECD AGAINST PROPERTY (AS LOAN)
Group Summary 1-Apr-2015 to 31-Mar-2022
| Closing Balance | ||
|---|---|---|
| Debit | Credit | |
| ADHUNIK ENTERPIRSES (OUT OF THE BOX) | 45,00,000.00 | |
| Grand Total | 45,00,000.00” | |
The above balance confirmation only indicates about the total amount due of Rs.45 lakhs, it is not disputed that the amount was given to the corporate debtor which was also reflected. In the Bank Statement which has been filed by the appellant an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs has been mentioned. Be that as it may, the receipt of the amount is not being refuted by the corporate debtor and the only issue was as to whether it was a financial debt. For proving a financial debt, the financial creditor is required to prove that the disbursement was for time value of money. The adjudicating authority rightly came to the conclusion that there is no material on the record to indicate that it was a financial debt.
Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to loan document to support his submission. The said loan documents were not even referred to in the claim form which was filed by appellant and RP is right in his submission that no credence can be given to the said loan agreement which was submitted by the appellant when the documents were called for and those documents were unstamped. We do not find any error in the order of adjudicating authority.
Appeal is dismissed.